Curt Chaffee: Carmel a cultural commons success

In 1900, the city of Carmel was largely a dream of J. Frank Devendorf and his partner Frank Powers. Their inspiration took root not because of cutting-edge technology or free market determinism, but through their good will and the effort of artists, craftsmen, writers and poets who were drawn by the beauty and like-minded fellowship. In fact, after the earthquake that devastated San Francisco in 1906, Devendorf and Powers offered home sites to displaced artists and craftsmen for a mere $10 down and whatever they could afford to pay monthly.

Early Carmel was a demonstration of a beneficial cultural commons transcending the strictly monetized systems we see today. Homes were built by owners and neighbors lending a hand. Food and goods were traded, bartered and shared. Diversity was celebrated, not shunned. Small businesses worked together. Artists and writers formed co-ops including the now-famous Carmel Art Association. This was all a prime example of a functioning, sustainable cultural commons. People were motivated and working for a common goal: the good and welfare of their community. Thus, the community became something greater than the sum of its parts or its financial assets.

Cultural commons are just as possible today, just as valid and would provide young people an alternative to the “every man, woman and child for themselves” belief that drives environmental destruction and greed. Yet, students’ curriculums and options become narrower each year, captive to demagoguery that promotes more money and unbridled technology as our only path forward.

There are more of us, but we aren’t fundamentally different from those who built Carmel by honest effort and good will. Our future, and certainly our children’s future, may well depend on returning to the priorities and motivations of those men and women. An open and ecologically sustainable society depends on our turning to embrace the cultural commons.